Friday, 26 September 2014

I am writing to you as my constituency MP to protest at the
misuse of grant funds by the New Forest National parks Authority (NFNPA).
You might ask what this has to do with your constituents, but please bear with
me: firstly, as the name implies, a National Park is a national asset,
administered for the benefit of the national citizenry, and supported by grants
paid for by the same. And that includes your constituents. Secondly,
some of the grants available to the NFNPA, notably the Local Sustainable
Transport Fund (LSTF) are combined with the South Downs National Park (SDNP) as
the “Two Parks LSTF”. The SNDP directly borders your constituency, and is
extensively used and enjoyed by your constituents. Funds awarded out of
the Two Parks LSTF to the NFNPA are by definition therefore not available to be
awarded to and spent by the SDNPA, and a misuse of funds by the one adversely
impacts the other.

The NFNPA applied for, and was awarded, a significant sum,
in excess of £2 million, to develop what would probably be the first example of
a “Boris-Bike” style cycle hire facility outside a major city. The cycles
would be available for short term hires and could be collected from one docking
station and delivered to another, with docking stations next to railways
stations and in towns and villages and other points of interest in the South
East of the Forest. The scheme was conceived to be of benefit both to
residents, and to visitors to the forest, and to provide an alternative to
motor transport which, as I am sure you know, is frequently gridlocked around
the forest, especially in summer.

The scheme was abandoned, due – according to the NFNPA – to
the hostility of local residents. The authority has produced no evidence
of this hostility, indeed if anything the evidence suggests the reverse, but
I’ll return to that. Now, they wish still to keep the money that they do
not propose to use for the applied-for purpose, and use it for other schemes.

If these schemes were in a similar spirit of sustainable
transport and in particular cycling facilities, I would have no objection, but
they are not. The largest part of the grant would now, if they get their
way, be used to resurface the edges of Rhinefield Drive. The damage
requiring this repair was caused by motor vehicles. By the NFNPA’s own
admission, only 139 cyclists a day use this road, and 1,562 cars drive on it
daily. (Source: NFNPA http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/3393/nfnpa_nffce_programme_update_to_members_sept_2014
) Clearly the beneficiary of this proposed expenditure, which should come
from the road maintenance budget, will be the motorists, which does not fit
with the sustainability objective.

Another significant chunk of the grant money is proposed to
be used to upgrade cycle routes in the Moors Valley Country Park, a
privately-run commercial concern some four miles outside the boundaries of the
New Forest national park, largely accessible only by private cars. This
clearly goes against the stated objectives of the grant which are to promote
cycling in the National park.

These proposals would replace the original proposal for a
cycle hire system for which I understand that a contractor had been engaged to
manage the service, apparently on the basis of hostility from local
residents. The NFNPA undertook an online survey, which was responded to
by several hundred people, mainly residents of the Forest but also some
visitors. The responses to this survey were analysed in a report to the
NFNPA. (Source: http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/downloads/file/839/community_feedback_report_summary
) Far from indicating significant hostility to the proposals, the
survey responses as analysed showed something between indifference and mild
tolerance for the proposals and for cyclists in general. The supposed
wishes of the residents not to have this scheme (even if it was only their
decision to make, which it is not) are therefore mere assertions, not supported,
indeed contradicted, by evidence.

So, to conclude, I would be grateful if you could express
your constituents’ views to prevent this abuse of sustainable transport grant
funding by the NFNPA.

Saturday, 20 September 2014

We had our department Off-site last week.After the obligatory morning session on “Strategy”
(yawn) we repaired to the Lee Valley White Water Centre, at Waltham Cross, for
a barbecue and team-building activities.

LVWWC was built for the 2012 Olympics and is now open to
clubs and the public for white-water kayaking and rafting.In essence it is simply a humungous swimming
pool, in which water is pumped by tremendously high-volume pumps into a
high-level pool, from where it cascades down a long winding channel into a low
level pool, from which you ride back up, in your raft, to the high level pool
on a kind of travelator, and start the descent all over again.The channel is set with all sorts of soft-ish
plastic blocks to create the effect of river rapids and white water.Provided you follow the advice and ensure
that, if you fall in, you float on your back with your feet facing downstream,
you won’t come to any harm, and you’ll be swept by the current towards sets of
steps where the monitoring staff will fish you out again.

Most of us opted for white water rafting, while some opted
instead for a raft-building competition, using big plastic drums, poles and
rope.I can certainly recommend white-water
rafting by the way, as a team building exercise.It was also tremendous fun – as long as you
(a) don’t mind the occasional swim, (b) are not of an excessively nervous
disposition, and (c) aren’t self-conscious about being seen in a wet-suit.(Only the positively anorexic could not look
fat in a wetsuit.I am sure the staff
sized me up and picked the size with extra gussets).

Our group was 45 people, ranging in age from 23-year-old
graduate recruits through to one 59-year-old senior partner, but in our
pyramidal structure I would say that half were in their twenties and a third in
their thirties.There were 18 women, 27
men.That is a fairly representative mix
for a London Big Four accounting firm, or indeed most City institutions really.

12 of the ladies, and only one gent, opted for raft
building, which was entirely dry – the rafts had to be tested in competition
against each other at the end, but the wet-siders did that, one team of
partners against another team of graduate recruits.The partners won – not, I hasten to add,
because the juniors thought it politic to let us win, rather because our raft,
while appearing at first sight to be the flimsier, actually held together for
the paddle out and around the green buoy and back, while the other team ended
up swimming along pushing the pieces of theirs before them.

There was, apparently some grumbling about the choice of
activity from the ladies.Many did not
want to get wet or have to get themselves together again in their finery for
the evening’s entertainment, making cocktails at the Rebecca Hossack Gallery.

This was evidently not a consideration which troubled the
men.It would be easy to fall into
sexism here, so apologies if you think that is what I have done, but our female
staff are generally more careful of their appearance, dress and grooming than
our male.I might add that it would be
no bad thing if the men upped their game on grooming and dress – accountancy is
still quite a traditional profession and clients tend to have more confidence
in well turned-out staff.It’s not that
our men don’t wear suit and tie – they do – it’s just that they all too
frequently look like they have slept in it.

Will I ever get to the point?Well, looking around that 60/40 split of male
and female staff, I recognised a sizeable number of men who come to work by
bicycle.Only one (plus one other who
was on holiday at the time) do I know among the women who does the same.

I understand that one factor, if perhaps not the most
significant, is the perception that cycling to work has an adverse impact on
grooming and dress.Having to change out
of lycra, applying the slap in the ladies’ at work, and getting “helmet hair”.As I say, not something which much troubles
the men, although perhaps it should.

Is this a fair argument against cycling?Who am I to say it is not?In any case, it is not hard to see why people
would think that, when they look at the cycling environment we face every day.Probably a more pressing concern is that
people (not just women) often don’t feel safe on the roads.I know that the statistics suggest that this
is not the case, that cycling is less dangerous than, say, tennis or golf, but
that is not how it feels, especially when the strategy adopted by our
government to encourage people to cycle, and to assure them that it is safe, is
to say “wear a helmet and high vis”, and to push the Franklin tome on cycling -
“Cyclecraft” - with its exhortations to keep safe by matching the speed of
motor traffic, occupying the slap-bang centre of the traffic lane, and keeping
a high cadence so that you can quickly achieve “sprint speed” at roundabouts.

But who says it has to be that way?Can we not cycle in ordinary clothes,
business attire even, if we ride the right type of bicycle?Instead of getting up like a fluorescent canary
and riding “choppers” (bikes cut down to the bare essentials, removing weight-adding
stuff like fairings and mudguards), can’t we ride practical machines which
protect our clothes, including, if you like, your Shalwar Kameez, as mentioned
in that excellent feature in the Birmingham Post the other day?Of course we can, but you would have to be
super-fit to do that Franklin-style and not find your business suit wringing
wet by the time you reach the office.Most people would prefer to proceed rather more sedately, in gentlemanly
or lady-like fashion.For that, we need
proper infrastructure.Not blue paint or
broken white lines, but concrete, kerbs and medians, and bollards and planters,
to keep us apart from the danger which we either avoid altogether by not
cycling, or adapt to by cycling like prats.

The Elephant-Kings Cross route at Ludgate Circus. That tree in the middle is where I would get off, 100 yards from my office

In that Birmingham Post article, Councillor Deirdre Alden,
who made the remarks which provoked this response, has clearly still not “got
it”. She still thinks cycling discriminates
in favour of young white men.She still
confuses cause with effect.I doubt she
is by any means alone in having such misconceptions, so how to convince her,
and her ilk?

All the more reason for pushing hard and fast for the Mayor
of London’s proposals for a North-South and an East-West segregated cycle
superhighway.This is, you might say,
the canary of mass, inclusive cycling, not just in London, but eventually
around the country.If it dies, it tells
us that the mine is toxic to humans too.

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Firstly, I should declare an interest.The incident I describe below occurred on an
event organised and sponsored by the firm of which I am proud to identify
myself as a partner.This annual JoGLE/LEJoG event has about 800 participants,
drawn from our partners and staff, clients and members of the general public
who commit to raising sponsorship money for charities.

My senior partner, David Sproul, is a keen cyclist, who has
participated in this event himself.A
significant number of his senior board-level colleagues are also keen cyclists.About a dozen of our partners took part in
the event this year, and many more of our staff – a certain number of the
places are set aside for the firm’s partners and staff and they are always
heavily over-subscribed, such that some staff get the opportunity to take part
only by forming “relay teams” who share the riding each day.

My firm is committed to cycling in many other ways. Our London offices have space for more than
600 cycles in secure parking – for a complement of about 7,000, many of whom
spend weeks at a time working at client offices, so this represents in effect
more than 10%, well above the new, and especially the old City of London
planning standards for cycle parking.With the parking comes lockers, showers, and even fresh towels for those
willing to pay a nominal charge for them.

I talk about “describing” the incident but actually I can’t –
the information so far in the media is sketchy.We know that Sally Preece was involved in a collision with a “car” on
the A82 somewhere near Loch Earn, but we don’t as yet know more about the
circumstances – whether it was at a junction or not, for example.(One of the comments on the road.cc article speculates
on sudden emergences of a car from a
side road, or a cycle ditto, but in that respect the BBC website article could
be misleading – it shows a google image of a junction on the road, but that may
signify nothing more than where the road closure to deal with the incident was
set up, after all a traffic diversion would require a junction to turn at).
There will presumably be an inquest and that is the proper place to determine
the facts.

A tragedy was in fact foretold, and perhaps it was
inevitable, indeed it has been pointed out that statistically, there should
have been one by 2012, so the inevitable was delayed by two years.Whatever the underlying reasons, the cause
was interaction of a motor vehicle with a vulnerable road user.(One might well question why the selfish
pricks who form the “A82 Partnership” could not just accept that, for less than
a half day in this year and possibly alternate years, the passage of 800
cyclists raising millions for charity might trump their selfish need-for-speed,
but there you have it).

Now move south, to London, and the ongoing consultations on
the East-West Cycle Superhighway, the so-called “Crossrail for Bikes”, and its
North-South companion. These proposals
would not have helped Mrs Preece.They
are a matter of London government alone, and sadly there is so far not much
sign of other metropolitan areas, or indeed counties, following suit.However, the dangers cyclists face, in having
to mix with fast-moving motor traffic on the roads, are very much the
same.It is my sense that my firm, while
supportive of staff cycling, are concerned that they should not push them into
doing anything which might put them in peril, so facilitation of cycling falls
short of active encouragement.The two
new proposals would specifically address that concern in very large measure,
especially as our offices are literally a hundred yards away, on a quiet
cul-de-sac which is permeable to bicycles, from the North-South route, and less
than a quarter-mile from the junction of the two routes at Blackfriars.Staff could travel to work from four points
of the compass in comfort and safety, and arrive at their desks with the
fitness, alertness and vitality that the firm knows comes with active travel to
work.

In contrast to the generally welcoming response from
cyclists, academics, some NHS bodies and a so-far small group of contrarian
businesses, we see an overtly hostile reaction from the City Corporation and
from London First, a membership
organisation which purports to speak out for London businesses.Don’t be fooled by the terminology – anyone who
talks about “balancing the needs of all road users” is in practice arguing for
the hegemony of the motor vehicle, as has been seen countless times over the
last many years.

﻿
﻿

"benefit all road users" - that tired old canard again

Now, London First purports to represent the interests of its
paid-up members but the distinct impression I have gained is that they did not
consult any of their members before they launched their offensive against the
proposals.Certainly I don’t have the
impression that my firm, with its generally supportive policy on cycling both
as sport and as commuter transport, and its Corporate Social Responsibility
policy which includes commitments to minimise travel by car or taxi, was canvassed
for its opinion in advance.

I am only one of over 700 partners, so I have no authority
to speak on behalf of the firm.Our corporate
position will of course take into consideration a whole host of commercial
considerations as well as our CSR policy, HR policy, and the interests of the
clients we advise.I think – I hope –
that none of this prevents them from coming out firmly in favour of the
proposals now.I know that I am not
alone in this. Update: in one of those serendipitous events, the Evening Standard has reported on a statement of the bleedin' obvious - most London workers can't find time in their busy lives for proper exercise, but they could sort it out with active travel to work. The superhighways are just what the doctor ordered.